imtiyaj ahamad vs State Of U.P — 312/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,420. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMP010007582026

Filing Number

711/2026

Filing Date

19-Feb-2026

Registration No

312/2026

Registration Date

19-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District & Session Judge

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1095

Police Station

KOTWALI

Year

2016

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 406,420

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.imtiyaj ahamad

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of U.P

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

    Case Summary: Case 312/2026 - Imtiyaj Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Court Decision: The District & Session Judge, Mainpuri rejected the anticipatory bail application of Imtiyaj Ahmad on March 12, 2026. The court found that the charges under IPC Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) constitute serious offenses of a grievous nature, and no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant pre-arrest bail under CrPC Section 438. Key Reasoning: The court determined that Ahmad and his associates fraudulently obtained approximately ₹3,67,500 from the complainant through false promises regarding a tractor purchase, provided bounced cheques, and failed to return the money despite settlements. The court applied Supreme Court precedent establishing that anticipatory bail should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances only and found the present case lacked such justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District & Session Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 19-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 312/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Case 312/2026 - Imtiyaj Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Court Decision: The District & Session Judge, Mainpuri rejected the anticipatory bail application of Imtiyaj Ahmad on March 12, 2026. The court found that the charges under IPC Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) constitute serious offenses of a grievous nature, and no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant pre-arrest bail under CrPC Section 438. Key Reasoning: The court determined that Ahmad and his associates fraudulently obtained approximately ₹3,67,500 from the complainant through false promises regarding a tractor purchase, provided bounced cheques, and failed to return the money despite settlements. The court applied Supreme Court precedent establishing that anticipatory bail should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances only and found the present case lacked such justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case